Is this forum still about Taoism...?

[Cobie]

31 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

… van Gulik … 

He was a Dutch Sinologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_van_Gulik  
This is a paper about van Gulik’s Judge Dee stories

https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/8/Zhu 5110742.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 

 

 

Edited February 15 by Cobie

[blue eyed snake]

yes, I know he was a dutch sinologist, that thesis though is nice, will read, thankyou

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

道家 are those who study and follow the principles in the Tao Te Ching.
 
道教 is definitely referring to the Taoist religion. 

 

Now  this   ^   is more like it    ( for all of us 'others' )  ;

 

'Squiggly picture Chinese word'   does not  mean that .... it means this ! 

 

Finally , some real Daoist discussion here !

 

[ Reminds me of when I asked what the  distinction between goat and sheep was ...... hooo boy !  ]

[Taoist Texts]

10 hours ago, Master Logray said:

 

So one of the most prominent temple and the Hong Kong Taoist Association are just wrong.

unfortunately they are wrong on this. And the reason for being wrong is that China is (and always been) a totalitarian state. The chinese leaders always minimize the sway of religion, in case of taoism  declaring that the historically most important scriptures do not belong to it. And the reason to keep a tight leash on religion stems from the recent history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

 

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

But they could be described as philosophers (for lack of a better word), that's all that is claimed.

No; that is not all that is claimed. By describing them as philosophers you put them in opposition to religion, thereby  claiming  that philosophy and religion they are mutually exclusive. Which is patently false. And if they are not mutually exclusive then describing them just philosophers and not religious philosophers is false as well.

5 hours ago, blue eyed snake said:

Now I wonder, has van Gulik based this story ( or rather this persona) on a story about a master Crane that is known in the classics?

A master who dies alone and nothing but nails is found?

this particular master is fictitious but there are many such cases in historical sources

11 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

So basically we're taking a set of categories that only (and debatably) apply in a very narrow window of Western intellectual history, and applying it to a set of ancient Chinese texts for which it is completely irrelevant. 

exactly. In all of the human history religion predates 'philosophy' by thousands of years. Religion is documented in China long before 'the philosophical classics'. Claiming that the classics were corrupted into a religion or they are somehow isolated from religion is simply meaningless.

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

 

What's weird is that this distinction doesn't even work in a Western context before maybe the 17th century or so. Plato, Aristotle, etc. are clearly "religious" thinkers and philosophy has an inherent religious dimension. So basically we're taking a set of categories that only (and debatably) apply in a very narrow window of Western intellectual history, and applying it to a set of ancient Chinese texts for which it is completely irrelevant. 

 

Actually , that distinction applies across the board and into western 'esoteric'  systems as well .

 

Eg ,  Astrology used to make sense 'all round ' - the medium of transference was obvious ; if one is influenced by Mars being on the horizon at birth , the medium is by the 'fact' that the planets are points that move around a shell or sphere , all inside each other like Russian dolls with the earth at its centre . . . 'simples' .

 

But what is the medium of transference for astrological influences today ?   'Cosmic rays ?   Magnetism ?   Gravity ?   'The tides '  ( dont start me on that one {  ie.  that common misunderstanding }   again !  ) ?

 

[ " The Origins of Modern Science by Herbert Butterfield | Goodreads

www.goodreads.com › book › show

 

In The Origins of Modern Science Professor Herbert Butterfield argues that past scientific achievements cannot be viewed through the filter of 20th century eyes ... "

 

- worth a read ]

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Unota said:

As for the separation from religion thing:

 

In my personal view I just think you can just do 'whatever you want forever.' You can detach your practices from the historical beliefs however you want. You can twist it to suit you personally however you want. You can know as little or as much about it as you want. What am I going to do about it? Even the uneducated cultivators are not doing anything to harm me, even if it annoys me a bit that people don't seem to understand that the DDJ can only be truly understood through personal interpretation because it was written in vaguely interpreted ways on purpose. When you read a translation, you are only reading what it means to the person that translated it. Which, is why you have a bunch of translations that seem vastly different from each-other.

 

I also think that trying to detach religion from a system that is deeply tied into these beliefs historically, shows an aversion to religion in general, which I don't entirely agree with. Religion is tied to the evolution of culture, the foundation of how people thought and why they did things. I think if you completely detach the religious aspect from the philosophical aspect, then you reject it as a whole.

 

As for the, why there are so few daoist posts, and why I don't typically interact or add my own:

 

I think it's silly to argue about things unless I just want to put my own personal opinion out there, which I don't really think matters that much, and I'm not usually inclined to do. That might be the case for other people, which is probably, why we don't have a lot of 'forum fodder,' as Keith put it. It just kind of feels like...a waste of time to me. Maybe if that is something that you like to do. I'm sure that there are people that get genuine enjoyment from debate. But I would rather be doing other things.

 

I do really like legends and learning about them. I like learning about inner spirits. I like learning about historical figures which may or may not have even existed, or the progression of external to inner alchemy throughout history, and what 'external alchemy' looked like in certain time periods. But I don't really feel like starting a whole thread about it.

 

I also think that a lot of things people posted about on here in the past have been a bunch of 'new age nonsense,' and I think that the concept of achieving some sort of spiritual 'superpowers' or 'immortality' via things like 'staring at the sun' have always been a depiction of self-inflated ego, even throughout history. People took things like mercury pills to live forever. (Question: Why would you do something like that? Why would you even want to?) Despite the fact that I love to read about it, I have no personal interest in applying 'alchemy' to myself and will not talk about it in any related threads. And, like Keith said, a lot of this is all more something you put to practice rather than typically talk about.

 

And, from observation, I also think that a lot of these daoists on this forum are grumpy old men with too much free time. I am not particularly interested in having any discussions with any of them. I think that a lot of Daoists are very...self-absorbed. And it comes across in the way that they speak. I like the Buddhists more.

 

This is probably the most 'opinion' that I have put into a post. But I feel obligated since for once, people are actually talking about something that interests me.

 

Well said  ( and thats even coming from 'a grumpy old man with too much time on his hands ' ) .

 

I would change one thing though ;

 

 " I also think that trying to detach religion from a system that is deeply tied into these beliefs historically, shows an aversion to religion in general, which I don't entirely agree with " .   Many may have an aversion to religion as well  but   I think we cant detach religion from it as people didnt think that way ;  they rarely detached 'religion' from anything , to the point where 'religion' may have not existed as some counter position to the secular'  as it does today - that is a modern 'dualism'  ( scientific revolution again ! ) - or in other words ;

 

" Religion is tied to the evolution of culture, the foundation of how people thought and why they did things. I think if you completely detach the religious aspect from     the philosophical aspect,  ( I will add ; or from just about anything back then ) then you reject it as a whole. "

 

The problem is 'we' are saying that a distinction we now have ( "religion" ) was implicit within the ancients  - but they didnt see it as 'religion' becasue they had no such distinction .

[wandelaar]

Thanks! I know enough now. Sources proving the distinction to have been made by the Chinese themselves long ago have been given. But they don't fit in with today's fashionable postmodern biases, so the facts are ignored. We're living in Trumps post-truth world now, on the Right just as much as on (what used to be) the Left.

 

Furthermore no interest in discussions about the Taoist classics appears to be left in this place. Time to move on...

[Master Logray]

Dao De Jing Chapter 81 (the last chapter), 

....善者不辯，辯者不善。知者不博，博者不知。 is quite applicable to this discussion. 

 

The English translation on Google.

....
Good men do not argue.
Those who argue are not good.
Those who know are not learned.
The learned do not know.

 

This translation seems a bit off to me.   My impression is that it means those know what is going on do not want to argue; those arguing don't know what is going on.  Those who understands the Tao is not having a wide knowledge; those having a wide knowledge may not know the Tao (or other subjects).  So I suppose someone fully absorbs this philosophy would refrain from arguing in forums.  This is one of the reasons why there are so few discussion on Taoism, not only here.   In real life, Taoist temples don't have sermons, regular or irregular.  Priests don't talk to the masses like Abrahamic religions or even Buddhists.

 

Back to religion, how do people keep life philosophy, divine teaching, cosmology, mystical lore, magical knowledge, ethics in tact for the future generations?   There is no better ways than religion.   The initial seed could have come from the divine or knowledge from commoner like Lao Zhi, it is the religion that merges all related into a system, and work it out in the real world, finally institutionalize it.   Then Taoist religion is somewhat the son (or nephew) of Taoist Philosophy.    The demarcation of philosophy and religion is for better understanding.  But they are intrinsically linked. 

 

When a religion is going overseas, it is quite natural for the recipients to take the easier part  - philosophy only.  Who would want to remember those deities names in Indian or in Egyptian languages.   Greek gods names are already long enough.   And it won't offend their own religions if only philosophy is mentioned.   Some places are quite sensitive too.   Preaching can result in death penalty.   So far I only saw a post about Rabbit God in this forum.  It is a rare occurrence.

 

 

 

 

 

[blue eyed snake]

12 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

this particular master is fictitious but there are many such cases in historical sources

 

thank you, i deduce you've read the judge Dee books?

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

thank you, i deduce you've read the judge Dee books?

i did not;) why read cringe western fakery about china when there is so many genuine chinese literature? i recommend this for starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Tales_from_a_Chinese_Studio

 

 

[Cobie]

20 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

The chinese leaders … in case of taoism  declaring that the historically most important scriptures do not belong to it.

So to whom do they belong according to the Chinese leaders (I know you think they are Confucian)?

 

 

Edited February 17 by Cobie

[blue eyed snake]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

i did not;) why read cringe western fakery about china when there is so many genuine chinese literature? i recommend this for starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Tales_from_a_Chinese_Studio

 

 

 

to each his own.

 

It's not nice to trample on someones childhood favorites, furthermore mister Robert van Gulik work was much respected by contemporary Chinese, he wrote a lot more then judge Dee which was a pastime for him.  

[Cobie]

On 15/02/2024 at 1:53 AM, silent thunder said:

Do you really contend that translation is not interpretational or subjective at all?

 “I'd explain it to you, but I don't have any crayons.”   
 

 

Edited February 16 by Cobie

[Taoist Texts]

7 hours ago, Cobie said:

So to whom do they belong according to the Chinese leaders (I know you think they are Confucian)?

the party line is that DDJ, ZZ, LZ all belong to some kind of an abstract 'ancient chinese philosophy' , to the 'philosophical Taoism' branch of it : 道家是中国哲学史上的一个流派

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Cobie said:

 “I'd explain it to you, but I don't have any crayons.”   
 

 

 

 

I thought offering someone your tongue to suck  had been decided here that  it was a bit 'off'  ?

 

but then again maybe this is part or your cultures way of expressing endearment ?

 

OR

 

Maybe a 'cultural signal ' to indicate  ' I dont have an answer to your question without digging myself further into this hole ?

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Thanks! I know enough now. Sources proving the distinction to have been made by the Chinese themselves long ago have been given. But they don't fit in with today's fashionable postmodern biases, so the facts are ignored. We're living in Trumps post-truth world now, on the Right just as much as on (what used to be) the Left.

 

Furthermore no interest in discussions about the Taoist classics appears to be left in this place. Time to move on...

 

 

At least you got your question answered  . 

 

[silent thunder]

19 hours ago, Cobie said:

 “I'd explain it to you, but I don't have any crayons.”   
 

 

this induced a delightful belly laugh!  <bow> Well played!

 

if imitation is indeed the most authentic form of flattery, then you have flattered one of my most treasured colleagues of my tenure in Hollywood and one of my most appreciated teachers of raw life process.  Richard Dragin has been a regular crew mate of mine for 24 years now.  He's the one who introduced me to this saying^{(saying it to me on a project of particular challenge)} and i can picture him waking from a deep sleep as i laughed while reading it saying to himself "i sense a disturbance in the force... someone woke up Creighton for a moment!"

 

Richard is one of those rare humans you may be blessed to encounter ^{(and further blessed to get to know deeply)} who is present, authentic, unapologetic and incredibly adroit, intelligent, observant and lovingly relentless; on top of these traits, he's also one of the most talented sculptors, welder and woodworker craftsman I've ever had the joy to work with and observe.  He embodies the traits of lineage holding masters I work with, yet he has no claimed lineage or formal praxis other than being relentlessly authentic, present and amazingly joyful.

 

I'm going to reach out to him to share this... he'll definitely beam with joy when he hears it.
thanks mate.

Edited February 17 by silent thunder
love of grammar

[Maddie]

I think Taoism is an interesting topic. What I don't think is interesting is people thinking Taoism is about semen, immortality, and super powers (oh my). 

[silent thunder]

The notion of physical^{(ego centered)} immortality is perhaps the most morbid curse i imagine anyone could be burdened with... as for semen... i voluntarily cut off my sperm from the outside world years ago and where super powers are concerned... i cannot imagine anything more super than a planet filled with life forms^{(particularly octopi)} that derived from an explosive super nova eons ago slowly coalescing in a small solar system.

 

taoism however is endlessly fascinating

[Cobie]

 

On 14/02/2024 at 11:40 PM, ChiDragon said:

I only respond to a thread that if it is relevant to OP.

 

 No you don’t 

 

On 14/02/2024 at 11:43 PM, ChiDragon said:

你看过我花生酱罐上的标签了吗?

[ChiDragon]

13 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 No you don’t 

 

有趣!